Talk:Richard Littlejohn

	This journalists related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

I find it remarkably ironic that my local gay bar () is called "The Little John". ^postate 16:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow...

Interesting that Big Bear Harry, noted plagiarist and Iraq war hypocrite (Hitchens was wrong, but at least he didn't backtrack), is considered a reliable source for exposing anyone. And Self's performance where he apparently pwned Littlejohn was nothing short of Oscar worthy. He repeats another neo-con cheerleader's (aaronovitch) assertion; namely, that Littlejohn's book was an overlong BNP pamphlet. Not only is the criticism then by definition unoriginal but Self, like David, provides no evidence. He then has the hypocritical balls of steel to wince when Littlejohn mentions Self's ACTUAL heroin use as opposed to Littlejohn's IMAGINARY support for the BNP. Even more surprising is that rationalwiki would be impressed by Self's antics here, as he was plugging a book about how misinformed some atheist is about the afterlife and how, upon waking from the dead, Mr. doubting thomas discovers the Buddhists were really right about everything...at least for this person...or something. How is this a smackdown exactly? Burkean (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

its more than Littlejohn deservesAMassiveGay (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That's your assessment of Littlejohn's character. On that subject, at least he isn't a serial plagiarist who vandalized Wikipedia to make himself look better (take a bow, Harry Bear). I take your view under consideration. I'm still looking for Will Self's smackdown, though. Burkean (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Quote - "Littlejohn may quite possibly be a repressed homosexual." - End Quote.

That's right, we're all accepting, we hate right-wing pundits, but HAHA Littlejohn talks so much about poofs HE MUST BE A POOF HIMSELF HAHAHA. If you don't think homosexuality is a bad thing, why would you try to apply it as a smear to someone you dislike, even when it's quite plain he's straight. You might as well dislike Ian Kershaw and say "Well he writes so much about Nazis he must be a Nazi", or dislike Jeremy Corbyn and say "Well he keeps banging on about the Conservatives in a negative way HE MUST BE A REPRESSED TORY".

So can we not use repressed homosexuality as a smear, homophobic in itself? 195.224.43.196 (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)